MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412864436 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2025-0097

Space for WHAM: a multi-region, multi-stock generalization of the Woods Hole Assessment Model with an application to black sea bass

2025· article· en· W4412864436 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Timothy J. Miller, Kiersten L. Curti, Alexander C. Hansell

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFisheryBass (fish)Stock assessmentStock (firearms)GeneralizationMorone saxatilisBlack seaGeographyOceanographyFishingMathematicsBiologyGeologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Woods Hole Assessment Model is a general state-space age-structured assessment model that is used to assess and manage many stocks in the Northeast US. We first describe an extension of the model allowing any number of stocks (or stock components) and regions with movement among regions as well as seasonal variation in stock and fleet dynamics. Movement rates can be functions of time- and age-varying random effects and environmental covariates. We then illustrate the model by applying it to data for the northern and southern components of the Northeast United States black sea bass stock and evaluate alternative hypotheses of bottom temperature and time-varying random effects on recruitment and natural mortality. We show strong evidence for temperature effects on recruitment, primarily for the northern stock component, and no evidence for including random effects or temperature effects on age 1 natural mortality.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.115

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicMarine and fisheries research→French-language works237,207→